Legal Opinion
Pike Natural Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 23, 1981No. Nos. 81-191 and 81-635PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Per curiam
The sole question before this court is the propriety of the commission’s denials of the requested excise tax adjustment clauses.
Appellants argue that the commission’s decisions are arbitrary, unreasonable and against the manifest weight of the evidence. These arguments are predicated upon a commission holding in a 1975 case which allowed the Dayton Power and *183Light Company to include an adjustment clause similar to that presently under consideration. In re Dayton Power & Light Co. (February 20, 1975), No. 73-166-Y. In upholding the adjustment clause there, the commission reasoned that the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Utility Consumers Council of Missouri, Inc. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1979
- Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Ohio Public Interest Action Group, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Dayton Communications Corp. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Montgomery County Board of Commissioners v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Industrial Energy Consumers of Ohio Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Tongren v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Columbus Southern Power Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Office of Consumers' Counsel v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.